MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Julie Swetnick Told NBC Her Brett Kavanaugh Story, and She Has Serious Credibility Issues

Michael Avenatti's client contradicted her previous claims, can't say the judge was actually involved.

KavanaughWin McNamee/Pool/ZUMA Press/NewscomJulie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, sat down for an interview with NBC News' Kate Snow, portions of which aired on MSNBC Monday night. The story Swetnick told strains credulity.

In the course of the interview, Swetnick contradicted her previous written statement, jumbled the timeline of her decision to come forward, and expressed uncertainty about whether Kavanaugh was actually involved in her own assault. She also borrowed a few key phrases from the story told by Christine Blasey Ford, the initial Kavanaugh accuser who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. In stark contrast to Ford, Swetnick was neither persuasive nor believable.

This was not lost on Snow, who cautioned that NBC could not corroborate Swetnick's story, and had discovered that several of her proposed witnesses were deceased. One person whom Swetnick claimed attended the house parties with her—parties at which women were routinely sexually assaulted, according to Swetnick—told NBC he didn't know her.

"This morning, Swetnick provided four names of friends she says went to the parties with her," said Snow. "One of them says he does not recall a Julie Swetnick. Another of the friends is deceased. We've reach out to the other two, but haven't heard back."

There were other, significant issues. She was confused about the timing of the Kavanaugh nomination, first suggesting that she thought about coming forward when she learned Kavanaugh had been shortlisted for the Supreme Court, but later suggesting that it was Ford's decision to speak out that prompted her. Swetnick's failure to recall whether something happened in July or September does not inspire great confidence that she can accurately recall events from three decades ago.

She described Kavanaugh as a frequent presence at the house parties she was attending in the early 1980s in Montgomery County, and she claimed Kavanaugh and his friends frequently wore their Georgetown Prep uniform because "they were very proud." Kavanaugh was a mean drunk, groped women, and might have participated in gang rapes, according to Swetnick.

But there's good reason to doubt this part of her story. In her sworn written statement, Swetnick claimed Kavanaugh would spike girls' drinks—and yet, in her interview with Snow, Swetnick merely claimed that she saw Kavanaugh near the punch bowl.

"I did see him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls," said Swetnick. "I saw him around the punchbowls. I don't know what he did."

Swetnick also claimed in her initial statement that the boys at these parties would line up outside bedrooms, waiting their turn to rape the incapacitated women inside. But she told Snow that the boys were merely huddled near the doorways of the rooms.

"I would see boys standing outside rooms, congregated together, sort of like a gauntlet," she said. "I would see them laughing."

It seemed quite possible Swetnick was reading far too much into this.

According to Swetnick, she was sexually assaulted at one of these parties. She could not say with any certainty that Kavanaugh was involved. She recalled being "shoved into a room" and hearing laughter, and that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were present. These are details that resemble Ford's story so closely it raises suspicion (of Swetnick, not of Kavanaugh).

Swetnick claimed she told her mother and a specific police officer about the assault; both are deceased. NBC is working to obtain the officer's files from the time period. If a record exists of her speaking with this officer, it will bolster her credibility. For now, this is by far the sketchiest of the accusations against Kavanaugh.

Swetnick is represented by Michael Avenatti, who also serves as the attorney for adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Snow asked Swetnick why she would go to Avenatti with this information, given that many in the media distrust his motivations. Swetnick was unapologetic—she said she found the right man for the job.

Photo Credit: Win McNamee/Pool/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Women -- educated, reasoning, modern women, especially -- are probably too busy watching Pres. Trump's dismissive, mean-spirited treatment of two female reporters to devote much attention to this ring of today's circus.

    Conservatives have appeased Trump's boorishness and the Republican Party's stale intolerance, so the consequences of Trump's abusive treatment of women for conservative political positions are deserved.

  • Brendan||

    Yes, Trump being boorish justifies outright lies aimed at conservatives.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Republican Party has been branded as backward, bigoted, and boorish for good reason, not consequent to lies.

  • JesseAz||

    It's been branded that way by idiots who can't coherently state a salient point so they yell and demean.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Amen JesseAz. Labeling groups of people without anything to support it says a lot about the one doing the labeling. The name of this publication is "Reason" for a good reason.

    IMHO, anyone who labels someone who accuses others of misconduct as "credible" without supporting evidence, is merely saying they are probably a good liar. As Mitchell the sex crimes investigator states in her memo, Ford is less credible than accusers in "he said vs. she said" situations, because of contradicting evidence, inconsistencies in her testimony and statements, and shoddy memory regarding important recent events. I don't find Ford credible at all. I won't deny that she was possibly groped in her youth, but if one is going to accuse someone, they should have evidence to support it. Further, people should do something about criminal behavior soon after it happened; otherwise, it's in a way condoning that behavior and does nothing to prevent it from happening again. It's just too easy to make false allegations without consequence, and without consequence, it's going to happen again and again.

  • Kivlor||

    The name of this publication is "Reason" for a good reason.

    Because it is ironic

  • JFA||

    But yet you are here? What does that say about you?

  • TuIpa||

    Fuck off Cathy.

  • AER1972||

    I agree she is only credible as woman in lock step with the mantra of psycho babble and psychotherapy. She is definitely on a high dose of psychotropic drugs and literally had to be handled by her lawyers. Her memory as I understand it was recovered in therapy. Uncorroborated in therapy recovered memory has been widely discredited and considered unreliable. She has spent a lifetime involved in psychotherapy and wrote her thesis on children and repressed memory

  • VOTE MILES||

    I have reason to believe that "Kirkland" was the ringleader of these gangrape parties. No one can deny that it's entirely consistent with his violently ugly personality.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Your statement is in alignment with others that have been heard.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    #kirklandgangrapes

  • Red Tony||

    Honestly, his general demeanor, not to mention his constant fixation with raping people, suggests that Kirkland has actually led gangrape parties.

  • AER1972||

    I think he had sex with animals as well

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|10.1.18 @ 9:04PM|#
    "The Republican Party has been branded as backward, bigoted, and boorish for good reason, not consequent to lies."

    Hey, asshole! Gonna answer the question?

  • dchang0||

    Re: "The Republican Party has been branded as backward, bigoted, and boorish"

    Congrats to the Democrats and Hollywood for fooling the American public into thinking the KKK were Republicans.

  • AER1972||

    It is so refreshing to hear from the childish side of the aisle. It is reassuring to know there is nothing going on between your ears except the rush of air over little lips. Trolling for george what a career path.

  • AER1972||

    Rev? Snowflake have you no shame?

  • mtrueman||

    'Yes, Trump being boorish justifies outright lies aimed at conservatives.'

    The left is going to continue to win as long as they're the ones willing to escalate the culture wars while the right keeps backing down.

  • Fancylad||

    The day the right stops bending over and saying "Thank you Sir, may I have another" every time the left does something psychotic, is the day they win.

    Unfortunately most of the right is too weenie for that. Sure there's the occasional Trump and the Coulter, but the vast majority just lower their trousers and take a double shot of intersectionality and social engineering.

  • AER1972||

    I think there is a lot of outrage and the more outrageous they get the more they overplay their hand. They will lose.. even here in Texas Beto is starting flicker with this latest confession. He wrote a sexist music review when he was 19 and felt that 20 years later he had to come clean. He is a pandering twit.

  • mtrueman||

    "He is a pandering twit."

    I guess he's not gonna get a seat on the supreme court, either.

  • lap83||

    I heard he once hung up on a female telemarketer when she called him during dinner.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Well, they are more delicate and prone to spells.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Yes, and he slammed the phone down. A true monster.

  • AER1972||

    that is hard to fathom. What a jerk Certainly not the temperment for SCOTUS

  • JesseAz||

    It's sexist to treat female reporters the same as male reporters.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Well, they are more delicate and prone to spells.

  • JesseAz||

    What kind of spells .. asking for a friend.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Eye of Newt...

  • JesseAz||

    Why always one eye? Some sick fetish for half blind lizards?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Eye of Newt has worked at least three times. The second time it worked was while he was still married to the first, and the third time it worked was while he was still married to the second.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Callista has no doubt been fucked while Newt watched in the corner - his tongue circulating inside his meaty jowls.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    PB's dad has no doubt been fucked while PB watched in the corner. PB's rectum puckering in anticipation, as he eagerly,awaited his turn of being bent over and fucked by the large black man.

    Some might call this sick and perverted. PB would come to call it favorite way to spend a Saturday night.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Wow, Last of the Shit-for-Brains is a Newcular Titties fan. Back when libertarians posted here there was no bigger punching bag than him.

  • Careless||

    I think it's more that everyone just hates you.

  • Sevo||

    Sarah Palin's Buttplug|10.1.18 @ 10:37PM|#
    "Back when libertarians posted here there was no bigger punching bag than him."
    Yes, there was: You.
    Fuck off, turd.

  • DesigNate||

    In Kirkland's defense, he IS a horrible human being, so being a racist and sexist douchenozzle comes with the territory.

  • IceTrey||

    Ted Kennedy killed a woman.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Did he roll over on her?

  • Don't look at me!||

    Stories have circulated that he groped her while she drowned.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Word is he raped a lot of them too.

  • dchang0||

    That's the only way he could've gotten laid.

  • AER1972||

    Some how despite his cowardice he was called the lion of the Senate. I am trying to imagine an animal that really represents Ted Kennedy, There simply aren't any animals as disgusting as this turd was. When he died I actually rejoiced. Brain cancer was a fitting end.

  • sk8rjason||

    Don't let what's going on in Washington distract you from the fact that in 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum-security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune.

  • An Innocent Man||

    Are they for hire? I have a problem no one else seems able to help me with.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    If you can find them, maybe you can hire... this "team"

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Does this problem have to do with Left - Right = 0?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    They can fix that, but they'll have to use weapons in common use in 1789. Or something else stupid that Hihn said.

    That means no Murdoch with a helicopter.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "weapons in common use in 1789"

    But it does mean cannons with grapeshot on the deck of a privateer.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Yes, but only from a boat, or horse and buggy.

  • Jerry B.||

    Just as well. I don't recall ever seeing them actually shoot anyone with their presumably now banned modern weapons, despite firing off a deuce and a half's load of ammo.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Biker gang, or corrupt land developer?

  • A Thinking Mind||

    These facts are entirely logical and properly sequenced.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    educated
    reasoning
    women

    Not sure if you can have all three.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Enjoy electoral irrelevance, wingnuts. As the American electorate improves, conservatives soon won't be able to be saved by our system structural amplification of yahoo votes.

  • JesseAz||

    Improves... Like Detroit? Or the poverty rate in California? Or the failing d.c. schools?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The reality is if you commie fags push things too far there will be a popular uprising and you will be all be slaughtered and deposited into landfills, face down.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    You GOP/conservatives are nothing but felons, pedophiles, bigots, Bible-Beaters, and rednecks.

    You are a combo of all no doubt.

  • Sevo||

    "You GOP/conservatives are nothing but felons, pedophiles, bigots, Bible-Beaters, and rednecks."

    Yep, your fave family is just wunnerful, turd:

    "Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-
    reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-
    to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-
    dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-
    8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_
    term=.2cbca4a77536

    "Clintons Began Taking White House Property a Year Ago"
    http://articles.latimes.com/2001/
    feb/10/news/mn-23723

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, we're former military, ex cops, etc.. plus a lot of good ole' boys that no now to shoot. We're not a bunch of limp wrists little fags crying about gun CK tol expecting the government to take care of us.

    Who the fuck do you think HAS all the privately owned firearms? A bunch of leftist hippies like you? Push too hard and your kind will be wiped off the map in a week.

    You only exist because people like me allow it. Don't ever think different.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Last of the Shitferbrains, also last of the internet tuff-bois.
    What an impotent Contard faggot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    NYP: More troll garbage.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Keep the hate alive, plug.

  • ||

    MZW - Is that you?

  • Ecoli||

    Rev, your phrasing is... odd.

    Are you a space alien? Have you probed anuses, all in the pursuit of knowledge of course>

  • Red Tony||

    Kirkland never has to pursue knowledge. He already knows everything. Unlike you, goober.

  • sarcasmic||

    Like fast, good, cheap, pick two.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I know plenty of educated and reasoned women. You need to get out more, bud.

  • speedylee||

    If you truly believe this, you need to find better women to hang around with.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    What did Trump say about Megyn Kelly? That she had blood gushing from her vag that distorted her thinking?

    You have to admit that women like that sort of talk.

  • Fancylad||

    Only from a Clinton though.

  • dchang0||

    When it comes to blood gushing and the Clintons, they like it to be gushing from their political opponents.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or some chick Bill just got done raping.

  • Red Tony||

    Why not both?

  • KevinP||

    The dark cloud of the War Against Women is forever hovering over Republicans but usually manages to land on Progressives and Democrats.

    "Concerned" Dems aren't concerned about past sexual assaults by Dems


    Excerpts (but read the whole article):
    It's amusing, in a sickening sort of way, to hear Senate Democrats say it's unacceptable to have on the Supreme Court someone "credibly" accused of assaulting a woman 36 years ago, when he was in high school. But ...

    Sen. Sherrod Brown's ex-wife claimed that Brown threw her up against a wall and showed "physical violence and abusive nature."

    Sen. Tom Carper admits he gave his ex-wife a black eye.

    Sen. Cory Booker has admitted groping a friend when he was in high school.

    And what about Sen. Mazie Hirono? From her perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she asks every male judicial nominee whether he has ever sexually harassed or assaulted anyone.

    Yet, according to the Washington Free Beacon, Hirono's Senate campaign accepted $1,000 from Sen. Carper's First State PAC in June of this year.

    Finally, let's not forget the case of Keith Ellison. He stands very credibly accused of assaulting two women as an adult.

    Yet, Ellison remains Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee.
  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

  • BigT||

    "In stark contrast to Ford, Swetnick was neither persuasive nor believable"

    One is a well rehearsed Stanford professor, the other is garden variety white trash.

  • JesseAz||

    "For now, this is by far the sketchiest of the accusations against Kavanaugh."

    Only the third sketchiest. The oral copulation through a hand is number one. The 1998 make out is number 2.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In related news, disqualifying people from public office over something they did 35 years ago when they were minors is asinine. Anybody in my office who wasted my time with irrelevant shit like this wouldn't be in my office for long.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That line of argument is a great look from birthers.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Eddy||

    I missed the birther posts from Ken Shultz, do you have a link to any of these posts, if they exist?

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    I don't know about him being a birther but Ken is a Benghazi CT nutcase at a minimum.

  • Eddy||

    Thank you for the misdirection.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're an idiot, Shrike.

    Obama blamed Benghazi on a Muslim overreaction to a YouTube video--which was not only a lie, it was disgustingly bigoted.

    My only argument is that Obama leveraged bigotry against Muslims to deflect blame away from his administration ahead of his election--which is disgusting.

    If you're ignorant of those facts, that isn't surprising, but it's definitely on you. How many years have you had you face rubbed in the same shit? You'd think you'd at least get embarrassed after a while.

    Do you or don't you believe Benghazi was all about a Muslim overreaction to a YouTube video?

    Here's the New York Times describing the popular uprising against the Islamist militia that murdered Christopher Stevens. They ran the militia out of town and burned down their headquarters.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09.....ghazi.html

    Here are photos of the Libyan people decrying the killing of Stevens earlier that day.

    http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI#1VNsT

    That's the crowd that later turned on the militia that attacked Stevens.

    P.S. You're a fucking ignoramus.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    The problem with you BENGHAZI!!!! nutcases is you get all worked up about Obama's "lie" about the cause of that attack but you don't give a fuck about the Bushpigs lies that killed 4500 US soldiers in Iraq.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're a fucking retard.

  • JesseAz||

    I second that you're a fucking retard.

  • JesseAz||

    Just to be clear since spb is an idiot...

    Others who believed the Iraq wmd lie: British intelligence, the UN, German intelligence, Spanish intelligence, gord, both Clintons, Albright, new York times, etc etc. Is it a lie if everyone believes bad intelligence or is it bad intelligence? You're comparing this to an actual intentional act of deception by Obama.

    You're fucking retarded.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    You fucking GOP Rent-Boys are such dick-suckers.

    Defending the lies that led up to the Iraq War? Go to GOP-Hack.com.

  • BigT||

    Jesse, you forgot Colon Powell, who sold it to the UN.

  • XM||

    Yeah, well the democrat party started or escalated two wars at minimum AND they were the party of slavery and Japanese internment.

    Talk about playing a game that you can't win.

  • Kirk Solo||

    You forgot the Civil War too!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    PB, answer his question you weasely cunt. Don't deflect.

  • dchang0||

    Re: "overreaction to a YouTube video"

    Doesn't everybody spontaneously demonstrate with AK47s and mortars when they see a video they don't like on YouTube?

    Amiright, fellow SJWs?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Even if what you're describing happened elsewhere in the world, that is not what happened on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi. It was a planned attack by a group affiliated with Al Qaeda to commemorate 9/11.

    Remember, the U.S. joined the intervention in Libya to save the people of Benghazi from extermination by Qaddafi. Look at the links I gave describing what happened on September 12, 2012. The Muslims of Benghazi stormed out of the mosques that Friday straight to protest the terrorist organization that murdered Chris Stevens.

    Is it really hard to believe that Obama was completely full of shit? Would you believe anything Obama said so long as he was also saying something shitty about Muslims? If so, you were the sort of person Obama was trying to manipulate with his bigoted lies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Galvanized by anger over the killing of the popular American ambassador here last week, thousands of Libyans marched through this city on Friday, demanding the disarming of the militias that helped topple the dictatorship but have troubled the country with their refusal to disband.

    . . .Protesters seized control of several militia headquarters on Friday night and handed them over to Libya's national army in what appeared to be a coordinated sweep. They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Shariah, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.

    .

    We want justice for Chris," read one sign among the estimated 30,000 Libyans, including families, who marched into Benghazi's main square on Friday to protest in front of the chief encampment of Ansar al-Shariah.

    Some held signs reading "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya lost a friend." Many protesters carried Libyan flags, and government police officers could be seen mingling with the marchers.

    Members of Ansar al-Shariah held a counterdemonstration, and arguments erupted between the opposing sides, but no violence occurred, at least not initially. Protesters chanted: "You terrorists, you cowards. Go back to Afghanistan."

    ----New York Times, September 21, 2012

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09.....ghazi.html

  • Ken Shultz||

    That was one week ahead of Obama's election night vs. Romney (November 6, 2012). Obama pointed the finger at these Muslims--as if it were a spontaneous reaction by crazed Muslims to a YouTube video--which is bigoted as hell.

    Obama leveraged bigotry against Muslims to deflect criticism away from his administration a week before the election, and there's nothing you can do about that. That's what he did. That's who he was--someone who would throw Muslims under the bigotry bus to get himself reelected. Deal with it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Even worse, he actively censored the video creator and renounced free speech. After all, free speech isn't an American value; it's not who we are.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Lying POS.

    Obama actively applauded the free speech rights of the video creator.

    You nuts can just lie.

  • JesseAz||

    That's why the video creator ended up in jail?

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    That's why the video creator ended up in jail?

    the locals picked him up on a probation violation, dumbass

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    the locals picked him up on a probation violation, dumbass

    Sounds credible...

  • soldiermedic76||

    Locking him up in jail is supporting his free speech rights? How does that work?

  • Sevo||

    Sarah Palin's Buttplug|10.1.18 @ 11:21PM|#
    "Lying POS.
    Obama actively applauded the free speech rights of the video creator.
    You nuts can just lie."

    Turd, why do you keep repeating the lies you've been busted on many times?
    Are you so brain-addled you forget? Do you hope the folks here don't remember?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe,

    Ok, maybe one or two.

    That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

    And the thin shield that you will hide behind:

    I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

    But then actions speak much louder than lies.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Oh, and BTW:

    White House officials on Friday asked YouTube to review an anti-Muslim video cited as fueling violent protests worldwide, but according to The New York Times, the Google-owned site doesn't have any intention of taking it down.

    So we'll just call it attempted censorship. Perhaps Obama was so eager to take it down so he could, um, er, I got nuthin.

  • Sevo||

    "I don't know about him being a birther but Ken is a Benghazi CT nutcase at a minimum."

    Turd, why do you keep repeating the lies you've been busted on many times?
    Are you so brain-addled you forget? Do you hope the folks here don't remember?

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    No one has "busted" me you old fag.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're one cold busted faggot there PB. You're a lying piece of shit caught in his lie. Just admit it.

    Also, here's a montage of the Obama admin lying about Benghazi too

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kMAQPr-jQq4

  • Sevo||

    Sarah Palin's Buttplug|10.1.18 @ 11:35PM|#
    "No one has "busted" me you old fag."

    Turd, you have been busted far more times than I care to count. If you are typing, it's an odd-son bet your posting lies, you pathetic piece of shit.
    And no, I'm not your daddy. Go fuck him again, turd, if he'll let you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Shrike thinks he's going after me for being some kind of conservative Muslim-hater; meanwhile, I'm over here calling Obama out for leveraging anti-Muslim bigotry to deflect blame away from his administration and get himself reelected.

    I'm the guy that used to go to mosque twice a week.

    Shrike can't comprehend anything that isn't in Democrat/Republican terms.

    Shrike is an amazing shithead. Here every day for ten years, at least, but still acts like he hasn't learned a single thing? It isn't an act. He's impervious to reason, persuasion, or facts. Probably proud of it, too.

    There's a word for people who are proud of being willfully ignorant. The word is "redneck". Shrike might as well be a redneck because, in the most fundamental way, he acts just like one.

  • sarcasmic||

    The more I think about it, the more I think it depends on the person. For those who peaked in high school, what they did 35 years ago is actually quite relevant because they have spent the last 35 years trying to relive it. That said, I don't think Mr K is such a person.

  • Eddy||

    Did you know Al Bundy was a star football player in high school?

  • sarcasmic||

    One of the drafts included that touchdown at Polk High.

    I'm happy to say that I am not in contact with a single person with whom I shared those four horrific years. But I'm sure that there are some who wish they were still there.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    HS was fun. Not the school part so much, but the social aspect. Everyone at my school was toking up so much it effectively created a huge melting pot and we had no significant cliques. Everyone went to everyone's bigger parties and it was cool provided no one started shit.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Hard to believe you peaked in high school Last of the Shitferbrais.
    /s

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    As opposed to No Balls At All, who never had a peak to rise to.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    For those who peaked in high school, what they did 35 years ago is actually quite relevant because they have spent the last 35 years trying to relive it.

    For those on the opposite end of the spectrum, the high school losers, they nurture their resentments and become journalists.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Or Reason Commenters: Exhibits: Last of the Shitferbrains, TrumpsCockholster1789, Sevo. Esp Sevo.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Or NYP, still lashing out at his betters for shoving him into the locker.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Sorry, Ken, I never attempted to rape someone, and neither did any of my friends, or most decent guys. I know how alcoholic prep school football jocks acted, though, so I am not so quick to believe Kavanaugh. Especially since he is a proven liar and would not answer any questions straight. Furthermore, his emotional and belligerent manner demonstrates he does not have the temperament to be a Supreme Court justice.

  • Just Say'n||

    lol

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Is there something you have to tell us?

  • JesseAz||

    He's probably laughing at the attempt at Obl parody. He forgot to look who was posting and realize it was just ignorant drivel.

  • Dan Bongard||

    Laughing at you was the most appropriate response. :)

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I know how alcoholic prep school football jocks actedI know how those negroes look at our white women, though, so I am not so quick to believe themKavanaugh. Especially since he is a proven liar and would not answer any questions straight.The Negro as a political factor can be controlled. But neither laws nor lynchings can subdue his lusts. Furthermore, his emotional and belligerent manner demonstrates he does not have the temperament to be a Supreme Court justice.There is no longer a restraint upon the brute passion of the Negro.

    FTFY

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sorry, Ken, I never attempted to rape someone, and neither did any of my friends, or most decent guys. I know how alcoholic prep school football jocks acted, though, so I am not so quick to believe Kavanaugh.

    There's no corroborating evidence or corroborating testimony to suggest that Kavanaugh raped anyone either.

    And what minors do today shouldn't disqualify them from office 35 years from now no matter how much you hate wealthy white people.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I know how alcoholic prep school football jocks acted, though, so I am not so quick to believe Kavanaugh."

    Imagine if someone said this about poor black people or Hispanics. How do you define a racist?

    I bet you're a racist by your own definition.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Chipper is a fucking bigot. I'll bet he lynched a few football players in his day. And a lot of football o,Ayers are black, so Dhipper might as well be in the KKK.

  • Red Tony||

    Aren't we all racist if you change a few words in our statements? Just say'n.

  • Ken Shultz||

    He's saying Kavanaugh is guilty based on things about him that in no way suggest wrongdoing.

    My definition of racism has two components.

    1) It's an ad hominem fallacy.

    2) It's a moral failure predicated on collectivism.

    Morality for me is all about the obligation to respect the right of individuals to make choices for themselves, and treating individuals as if they were a group is to deny the very existence of our obligation to respect that personal autonomy.

    I suspect Baculum's definition has something to do with being prejudiced against people because of their race. Being a black gang member doesn't mean you're guilty of any particular drive by shooting, and being a white prep school jock doesn't mean you're guilty of groping someone either.

  • ThomasD||

    (almost) totally off track.

    My definition of racism has two components.

    1) It's an ad hominem fallacy.

    2) It's a moral failure predicated on collectivism.

    I like that formulation Ken, it's concise but has broad application.

    Racism today has become almost entirely a matter of skin color being accepted as shorthand for subculture. But it wasn't always that way. When Churchill spoke of the English speaking peoples he was also referring to a race, but one of multiple skin colors. It is also important to note that he was being both descriptive and largely complementary.

    So, much like the word 'discrimination' has become all but pejorative, even though we all use it every day of our lives, and in myriad ways that are not morally wrong. Our notions of race viz a viz racism have likewise been perverted.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Not even close to being the same thing. One is based on race, the other is based on a very specific social group one chooses to join. You are right that it is still a judgment based on group membership, though, which is not very individualistic. That is why my judgment is mostly based on how Kavanaugh behaved during the testimony and the lies he told. You should focus on this part of my comment, because that is what most of my judgment is based on. The first part just informs my instincts, not my final judgment.

  • ThomasD||

    "One is based on race, the other is based on a very specific social group one chooses to join."

    Meaning that your definition of race is entirely predicated upon some sort of characteristic over which we have no control (e.g. skin color at birth.)

    And while that is a common, and pervasive understanding of race, it is not the only definition. A race may also be grouped upon entirely social qualities.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Lets ignore the ghetto culture that people choose to join because we can focus on their skin color instead. Lets ignore the lies Ford told.

    But do focus on a man being torn apart for political points getting testy with his attackers as disqualifying.

  • DesigNate||

    Did Trumps election brake your brain, or are you just stirring shit up?

    Personally, I would have told everyone of those Democrat Senators that my drinking habits in high school and the stupid code words we used for things had no fucking bearing on my ability to do my job NOW, so they should sit down and shut the fuck up.

  • CE||

    If true, these charges are serious and should merit disqualification from high office. Attempted rape is not "jaywalking" as one right wing radio host compared it to today.

    But if someone is to be accused of serious charges, they should be given the chance to defend themselves. Claiming something bad happened sometime in 1982 and the accused may have been in that building at the same time, and may have been standing in line (for the rest room perhaps?), or as it turns out, congregating in the hallway and laughing (at a party), where theses serious crimes supposedly happened many times, with no corroborating witnesses and no police reports makes them little more than rumors.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If true, these charges are serious and should merit disqualification from high office"

    The question isn't whether grabbing a girl's breast over her clothing is a serious offense. It's whether minors should be excluded from public office 35 years from now for what they do today. Can you justify that in some way? Why does it merit disqualification?

  • ThomasD||

    "It's whether minors should be excluded from public office 35 years from now for what they do today. Can you justify that in some way? Why does it merit disqualification?"

    And let's just project Reason's attitude about all this thirty years into the future.

    When juvenile behaviors are not merely a matter of questionable memory, but also digitally documented in both audio and video format.

    Cannot wait for Senate Judiciary Committees to devolve into dickpics and shaved selfies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I believe that accused criminals should be free to waive their right to a public trial, just like they can waive their right to a jury, their right to remain silent, or their right to an attorney. Sentencing a convicted adult felon to never being able to pass a criminal background check and never being able to have a decent job again amounts to cruel and unusual punishment if you ask me. The Puritans may have put people in the stockade to be subjected to public humiliation, but even they let them out after a while. Nowadays, with the internet, we keep people in the stockade forever--you can never outlive a felony conviction.

    Is it any wonder African-Americans, who disproportionately availed themselves of opportunities in the drug trade (where they don't discriminate against people because of their race), have a hard time succeeding statistically? Yeah, we need serious sentencing reform in this country, and I'd start with expunging people's records at some point after they've served their time and are off parole.

    Kavanaugh wasn't even convicted. If he had been convicted of grabbing a girl's breast, chances are he'd be off parole by now--and his record would have been expunged when he turned 18 or 21. Do you really mean to exclude people from positions of authority based on things they did 35 years ago as minors, and if so, do you also believe in sentencing reform?

  • BigT||

    "Is it any wonder African-Americans......have a hard time succeeding statistically?"

    Maybe math isn't their thing?

  • GlenchristLaw||

    And this is relevant to a libertarian magazine or its audience -- how?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Robby once answered one of my questions in comments like that. It was on a story where you couldn't tell if he was against Title IX or just in favor of violating everyone's rights equally. How can you tell this article is libertarian, I asked.

    His response was about how I should look at the masthead. There are so many things wrong with that, it's hard to know where to start. I'll say this, whatever other definitions there are for a libertarian, I suspect we're also people who are least susceptible to the appeal to authority fallacy. We want to make choices for ourselves. We think for ourselves. It's who we are.

    I don't believe Robby knows much about libertarianism or his libertarian audience, and I don't believe he really cares either.

  • ThomasD||

    "I don't believe Robby knows much about libertarianism or his libertarian audience, and I don't believe he really cares either."

    In and of itself that's not much of a problem. The powers that be continuing to grant him a soapbox here certainly is. It's tacit endorsement.

  • An Innocent Man||

    Any non retarded person knew before the interview that her allegations were insane.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    So, in other words, slightly ahead of Robbie?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Yes, but that does not affect the credibility of the other accusers.

  • An Innocent Man||

    Correct, they lack credibility all on their own.

  • Ecoli||

    made me laugh!

    +1

  • CE||

    They appear to be more credible, but lacking any corroboration, what action should be taken? Set a precedent of disqualifying any appointee who someone levels a serious charge against, with no real evidence at all?

  • DesigNate||

    Not sure how "I was at a dorm party and Kav might have been there and might have put his dick in my face. I'm not really sure though cause I was totally wasted and had to call around to my friends to see if they remembered" and "I was a college girl that went to high school sophmore and junior parties where people were pulling gang rape trains on drugged/intoxicated girls. I never told the authorities about it and I kept going back, even after I was the one pulling the train." are in any way credible.

  • CDRSchafer||

    I think she took a lude and watched Porky's II and thought it was reality.

  • soldiermedic76||

    You mean the two accusations that have been disputed by all the other witnesses? You consider uncorroborated charges with excupaltory witnesses as credible?

  • BigT||

    What does exculpatory mean again? That wasn't covered in the coaching sessions.

  • Ecoli||

    That one floored me.

    A 53 year old college professor that doesn't know what exculpatory means. She needs to spend some time with the Reader's Digest.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""You mean the two accusations that have been disputed by all the other witnesses?""

    There are no witnesses. There are people who she thought would back up her story, but not because they witnessed the crime. The accusers are trying to say he was at the parties, therefore guilty. No reasonable person would say being there equates to guilt. They are trying to play the guilt by association card.

  • JesseAz||

    Can you define credible for us chipper?

  • ThomasD||

    There is life somewhere else in the universe is an entirely credible statement.

    It's also irrefutable.

    But it doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful either.

  • wreckinball||

    Really the gang rape parties didn't happen. Go figure
    Good work Robby figuring that out

    I mean it sounded so "credible"

  • JesseAz||

    Robbie's line of credibility is way lower than mine.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It starts with, "I want it to be true..."

  • CE||

    I heard the same urban legends in California in the 1980s. Not the part about Kavanaugh though.

  • Eddy||

    College official in trouble for questioning Swetnick story's accuracy

    "John Garvey, (Catholic University) president, said Friday in a campus-wide email that Mr. Rainford would be suspended for the remainder of the semester as punishment for the comments, which he said "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to the victim," The Post reported.

    ""Rainford's tweets of the past week are unacceptable," Mr. Garvey wrote. "We should expect any opinion he expresses about sexual assault to be thoughtful, constructive, and reflective of the values of Catholic University, particularly in communications from the account handle @NCSSSDean. While it was appropriate for him to apologize and to delete his Twitter and Facebook accounts, this does not excuse the serious lack of judgment and insensitivity of his comments.""

  • JesseAz||

    He should have tweeted about her being castrated and fed to pigs. Would have been protected then.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    + 1 Brick Top from Snatch

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    What the fuck is wrong with this country when you can't even have a good gangbang without people pointing fingers?

  • JesseAz||

    In a good gang bang there are no free fingers to point with dummy.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I imagine a "good" one would necessitate the consent of all the participants.

    But I don't see how your comment is relevant here.

  • Red Tony||

    Oh, it did.

    It did.

    WORTH. IT.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Which part of Ford's story did you find most credible, bobby?

    Was it the fact that she claimed she was assaulted in her late teens and the mid 80's only to later change it to the early 80's?

    Or perhaps it was the part where she claimed she never heard of the senate offer to come to her?

    Wait, maybe it was the part where she couldn't remember when she talked to Wapo in the last two months.

    No, it must be the part where she claims there were 4 boys in the room, no 2 boys but 4 boys at the party, no 4 boys and 2 girls at the party.

    Silly me, it's obviously the part where all of her named witnesses contradict her. That's it.

  • John Cuyle||

    I suspect it's the part where Judge's role in the incident changed from being ambiguous in her letter that was leaked to the WaPo -- definitely a witness but neither obviously an attacker nor rescuer -- to attacker by the time she finally got around to making a statement under oath.

  • JesseAz||

    You forgot when the 2 girls became just her and her friend. She literally is claiming she's referring to herself in third person.

  • RG||

    But she definitively knows she only had one beer and wasn't on medication.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Up next: I had a beer but didn't swallow it.

  • JesseAz||

    To be fair... Beer doesn't define quantity. She could mean a keg of beer, a drained enema of beer, etc.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That part is actually consistent (I think). It's about the only (revised) thing that is.

  • JesseAz||

    I know nobody who would include themselves in the count of who was there.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I would. Of course you don't know me.

  • BigT||

    "Including me, there were three boys there" is the way people usually frame it.

  • mtrueman||

    'That's it.'

    You missed the part where the GOP throws Kavanaugh under the bus. Hasn't happened yet, but I fear it will. They don't have the stomach for this fight. Perhaps they'll be more careful in the future to pick potential political appointees who are shrewder and able to cope with the spotlight of public attention.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And by 'cope' you mean democrats who are immune.

  • mtrueman||

    "And by 'cope' you mean democrats who are immune."

    I meant putting on a performance without lying, crying or ranting about Hillary.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The GOP better nut up, or prepare for a big slew of Eric Camtor style primaryimg. And what kind of weaklimg cowers before some fucking progtard? Every progtard I know has at least enough sense to give me a wide berth if they know what's good for them.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Oh for fucks sakes you're such an impotent little twerp, Last of the Shitferbrains. The reason people give youa wide berth if b/c you're a fucking lunatic and you probably smell bad.
    Jeezus, you're a parody of a satire of a gun-fapping Contard.

  • TuIpa||

    Cry more.

  • Adans smith||

    Bitchs be crazy.

  • Rob Misek||

    "parties at which women were routinely sexually assaulted,"

    Slut remorse.

  • Don't look at me!||

    For teenagers , they sure were smart, able to keep routine rapes a secret for so long.

  • JesseAz||

    So were the mcmartins and their daycare center. But eventually Scooby Doo catches them all.

  • CE||

    What do you think they form secret societies for?

  • A Thinking Mind||

    At least Robbie is acknowledging how bonkers this story is. He probably needs to acknowledge how bonkers he was when he thought this was somehow plausible, initially.

  • sarcasmic||

    Whatever you do, don't tell anyone...

    *warning - stoner rock that rocks*

  • sarcasmic||

  • sarcasmic||

    The Pierces are a pair of sisters who did ballet before they discovered they were also talented musicians and singers.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bree Sharp never gets enough credit.

    Dirty Magazine

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    That's great, thanks. I like the Pierces ladies as well.

    Here is my quintessential stoner rock album.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Well, my take is that with all the pedophilia and gay toe-tapping going on with the GOP it is a relief that Kavanaugh is at least a drunken straight male like most of us.

  • JesseAz||

    It took over a dozen people to come forward in order to get the Oregon pedophile mayor to step down.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oregon? Or do you mean the progressive democrat Pedro mayor of Seattle? Of course, with progtards it all just runs together since they're all pedos and rapists. Unlike what PB said about republicans.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Swetnick was unapologetic—she said she found the right man for the job.

    Totes agree. I think Avenatti and Swetnick make an adorable couple; he's the Sir Galahad to her Casey Anthony.

  • JesseAz||

    So far it's warren, avenneti, and hillary for the democrats in 2020. Spartacus probably will throw his hat in too. Going to be a funny ass election.

  • HGW xx/7||

    Yeah, I think we're at last edging closer to election by Thunderdome.

  • Sarah Palin's Buttplug||

    Hillary is not running again you doofus.

    The Dems don't have anyone though. They always go to the middle (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama) but the middle has been hollowed out.

    Mark Cuban is smarter, better spoken, and richer (and more libertarian) than the Con Man but he knows he can't win the nomination.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Because he's a real asshole?

  • HGW xx/7||

    I would tend to agree that the Clintons and Kerry were plays to the middle, but Obama was much more left-wing than center-left. Still, compared to Warren, Harris, or Sanders, he's looks like a card-carrying Bircher.

    Cuban would be fun. No argument there.

  • JesseAz||

    She's out there more than any other potential candidate. Keep telling yourself that sweetie. Hillary is more egotistical than even trump.

  • Vaelyn||

    Did anybody catch her guest shot as "Hilary (one L) Clinton" on the new "Murphy Brown?" Pure cringe. Still trying to prove she has a sense of humor...

  • TuIpa||

    Mark Cuban has his own #MeToo problems.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    The FBI can't figure out the Vegas shooting after a year in the city with the most surveillance in the country... What do you expect they will bring to an investigation of a date rape at an undisclosed location on an undisclosed date with only 3-5 people present?

  • Eddy||

    They need a Hot Tub Time Machine.

  • Eddy||

    That also helps them avoid the deadline pressure - they only return to the present when their investigation is complete.

  • Just Say'n||

    Are you Michael Malice?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I wouldn't be surprised if he comments here.

  • Just Say'n||

    To be safe, though, we should just accept future allegations as fact absent all evidence and plausibility

  • JesseAz||

    Why raise the standards? Against all evidence, not absent.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • Drave Robber||

    Parts of it is a boring spy novel but the epilogue is worth persevering.

    (read it ~ten years ago in Russian)

  • Naaman Brown||

    I downloaded that 3 page PDF "Declaration of Julie Swetnick", the one ending "I declare, under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. I have executed this declaration on September 25, 2018." that closes with a signature. (Is that even proper form for a legal binding document?)

    Julie Swetnick was a 1980 graduate of Gaithersburg High School in Maryland. "I first met Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh in approximately 1980-1981. I was introduced to them at a house party I attended in the Washington, D.C. area." If Kavanaugh was 17 at the party with Ford in 1982, then he was 15-16 when Swetnick (a high school graduate) partied with Judge and him at "well over ten house parties in the Washington, D.C. area in the years 1981-1983" witnessing them "drink excessively" and engaging in "the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent". During 1981-1982 she became aware Judge, Kavanaugh and others spiked the punch with drugs and/or grain alcohol: "This caused me to make an effort to purposely avoid the "punch" at these parties."

  • Naaman Brown||

    /2/
    She kept going to those parties until "In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these "gang" or "train" rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present. Shortly after the incident, I shared what had transpired with at least two other people." [Both now deceased.] "During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking." She continued going to those parties into 1983 because ...?

    I know that's not the story Swetnick told in the 1 Oct Kate Snow interview. She had a written declaration "under penalty of perjury" and couldn't follow her own script? Or did she even read what Avenatti had her sign 25 Sep?

    I think all the Kavanaugh Hearing claims need to be investigated to the last detail and those responsible for false statements punished whether or not Kavanaugh is nominated to SCOTUS. The revealed fabricators should be tracked down by mobs with torches and pitchforks, decapitated, their heads mounted on pikes at the city gates til they are picked to bare bones by carrion crows and their bleached skulls left as a warning:

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    [Both now deceased.]

    But likely voters registered in two states.

  • IceTrey||

    To hell with the rest of them bitches let em get gang raped!

  • SIV||

    The only rational conclusion to be drawn is that women are inveterate liars and are not to be believed barring clear corroborating evidence.

  • Ecoli||

    I wonder if all this ridicule in the comments has any effect on Robbie, or any of the Reason staff?

    Pointing out how ridiculous Ford's evolving story is would make a normal person step back and reevaluate. It seems to have no effect on journalists. They keep insisting that there are "credible" allegations of sexual misconduct against Kav. At what point does credibility swirl away down the drain?

  • CE||

    At least she didn't claim someone said "grab it's leg".

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    No. No it doesn't.

  • JeremyR||

    So how is this different from Ford, whose story keeps changing and while has named witnesses, all have denied what she claims ever took place? We are told by Reason constantly that she is "credible", despite no witnesses and a vague story.

  • SIV||

    Reasaon calLs her credible because she is a professor of "neuroscience" at Stanford and " OMFG I STILL CAN'T BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT, IT WAS HILLARY'S TURN GODDAMNIT!!1!

    Seriously, there is no other plausible explanation.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They didn't deny it, IIRC. They said they don't recall it happening. Which is different than saying "the party never occurred".

  • ThomasD||

    " Which is different than saying "the party never occurred".

    Well, yes, why you think this pertinent is beyond me. It would be rather foolish for them to testify about something they have no knowledge of.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Actually her friend said she'd never met K and you think that might have happened at such a small party.

    You'd also think she'd remember being separated from her friend and left alone with a group of guys for an extended period of time. Or maybe being alone with a group of guys for extended periods of time was a regular thing in her circle of friends.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, Reason Republicans:
    How do you intend to prevent this sort of circus in the future?
    I get it that you are mad that Democrats leveled rather thin accusations against Kavanaugh just to try to derail his nomination. What is your plan to stop that from happening again?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Don't give them anything they want. Period. No delays, no nothing.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So that would also be the case when Democrats are in the majority and Republicans are in the minority, then, right?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That wont be happening. The Democratic Party is through.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Did you not follow the Obamacare passage?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Did you not follow the Obamacare passage?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And if your suggestion is adopted, then what's the point of having confirmation hearings in the first place?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Well considering that confirmation hearings are a recent phenomena, what exactly is your point?

    Oh hell, there I go with the pigeon chess again. Pawn to shit 4.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perhaps you might want to start with answering the question that I posed.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Ya know, the more I think about it, the more that I think you types who are in the camp of "never compromise with the Left", really want a parliamentary system of government, when the majority party has complete control of the government and never has to compromise at all with the minority party/parties.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Once the Democratic Party only has SJWs and Socialists left, the LP and GOP will become the dominant parties to duke it out.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Uh huh.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Is this collectivizing, jeffy?

    Chipper Morning Baculum|10.1.18 @ 10:13PM|#

    Sorry, Ken, I never attempted to rape someone, and neither did any of my friends, or most decent guys. I know how alcoholic prep school football jocks acted, though, so I am not so quick to believe Kavanaugh.

    It kinda seems like collectivizing, but I'm sure you can explain how it isn't.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Perhaps you can ask Chipper. I am not responsible for the comments of others. The fact that you think I am certainly seems like you are collectivizing me.

    But what is the point. Your point in coming here is just to stir shit up and throw grenades into conversations.

  • Red Tony||

    You make a good point, loathe as I am to admit it. Stopping them from doing this again would require, basically, for the Democrats to grow some morals and the Republicans to hold on to theirs. In other words, it would require basically returning to the 70s, when the idea was "you don't disqualify the nominee unless the nominee is rather plainly a bad choice". Today the idea is "don't let the other side's appointment through".

    And honestly? There is no quick, one-step answer that solves that problem. There are plenty that would make it worse, but as it stands, what would be required to stop this from ever happening again is a shift in how the American people (and more importantly, the politicians) think about the Supreme Court and its nominees; in other words, a huge shift in how the government's power is perceived.

  • John I||

    "Stopping them from doing this again would require, basically, for the Democrats to grow some morals and the Republicans to hold on to theirs"

    Didn't the Republicans hold out and stop Merrick Garland from getting any kind of hearing though? I don't think they've been any more moral on this issue than the Democrats have.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Not holding a hearing is equivalent to holding a hearing but making accusation of felony sexual assault without corroborating evidence?

  • John I||

    "Okay, Reason Republicans:
    How do you intend to prevent this sort of circus in the future?"

    I hate the Republicans but my position is that it's unfortunately probably impossible to prevent every nomination from being a circus when the parties are this polarized.

  • XM||

    Swetnick

    "I saw BK and his friend spike the punch and then they attacked the inebriated women"

    Swetnick, round two

    "I saw BK and friends with a red cup near the punch, so I became suspicous. Also I never saw him rape women."

    You know that sitcom trope where everyone can CLEARLY see what's going on, but they decide to be intentionally obtuse or pretend not to notice it for comic effect? That's mildly amusing in a TV show, but in real life matters like rape accusation, it's just sad.

    This is coordinated hit job. The women basically tell the same story that's just vague enough to provide plausibility deniability under scrutiny. They're represented by the same activist lawyers whose strategy is to SHOUT for hearings and investigations first, and vet allegations later. There is no chance in hell that a reputable law firm would allow their clients to shift their story this much before the media. No chance whatsoever. A rookie paralegal could have caught holes and troublesome past history with a cursory search.

    But no one will say it. No one is laughing these women out of town. Major networks and newspapers continue to print their stories or interview them on TV for transparently partisan reasons.

    For a second, you almost agree with Trump's call to cancel broadcast licenses of biased tv stations.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So if you don't think media outlets should even report these allegations, then what standard should media outlets use in reporting a story? Whether it's "true"? And who decides this? The same biased people now who are running those places?

  • Echospinner||

    C'mon.

    Yeah the media reporting unsubstantiated allegations. Well ok. That is what the bottom feeders do. They also report on what Kim Kardashian wore today.

    Truth? Truth has nothing to do with this.

  • Rob Misek||

    Of course it's about truth.

    Do you think it's about some idea of a free market democracy where the rich get 1000 votes for every one of yours?

    There is only one solution. Criminalize lying.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    I don't know maybe the media should you know vet a story and find some facts out first. So if I go to the media and say Biden and Coons corner me in a closet sometime 10 years ago and did bad things to me should they report it?

    BTW - they only report these for Repubs. You don't hear anything about Ellison do you? You also usually can tell the different between an rep and a dem allegation in a story. R is in the first line, D is buried if at all 10 paragraphs down.

    Maybe the media should, I don't know report unbiased facts so people can decide instead of trying to shape opinions.

  • Rob Misek||

    The media has chosen to be entertainment.

    It can say or do anything.

    Big spending lobby groups have much to gain from misleading the public with propaganda.

    More than half of what you believe is your nations moral obligations are bullshit propaganda.

    Those butterflies in your stomach and your confusion is your bodies involuntary reaction to brainwashing.

    You are suffering from propaganda DT's.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Are you willing to submit a sworn affidavit to that fact? Do you think a sworn affidavit issued under penalty of perjury is at least enough of a basis to write a story? If not, then what should be?

    It certainly sounds like many of the gripes coming from the right about the media is that they aren't being good enough gatekeepers, when I thought all along the success of Fox News and right wing talk radio in general was because they were avenues to circumvent the gatekeeper status of traditional news organizations.

    You don't hear anything about Ellison do you?

    Is Ellison nominated for SCOTUS? In case you hadn't noticed, the DC media tends to follow what is currently happening in DC.

  • BigT||

    Call the stories 'unsubstantiated' and you are being fair.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is exactly what outlets like the NY Times did. But that isn't enough?

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Unsubstantiated is very different from credible you idiot.

  • Naaman Brown||

    We have had advocacy journalism as a standard in the U.S. for generations.
    Why does anyone act surprised?

  • BigT||

    The media should not be calling the stories 'credible' without some corroboration. The stories are 'uncorroborated.'

  • Ecoli||

    When NBC "reports" such drivel, they jettison their credibility. They become the National Inquirer. NI has an audience, but they are there mostly for the laughs about "Batboy" and such. If Democrats embrace such drivel, they lose.

    That is why Fox is dominant.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Dominant... among Escherichia.

  • NashTiger||

    Julie Swetnick is a liar and a fvcking nutjob, Robby Soave has serious credibility issues

  • Hank Phillips||

    Note to foreign readers: competence in logical and rhetorical argumentation is not a prerequisite for infiltrating the Comments section. Seeing "All Ova fertilized" where the Constitution says "All Persons born" passes the GOP eye test.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Lying skank was lying?
    Well I am shocked.

  • Kirk Solo||

    Swetnick had claimed that she "became aware of efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties" she attended. - WHO THE FUCK HAS PUNCH AT A DRINKING PARTY!

  • Naaman Brown||

    "Declaration of Julie Swetnick"
    Julie Swetnick graduated high school in 1980.
    She attended parties 1981-1982 with preppie high school students.
    1981-1983 she saw Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh spike the punch with drugs and or alcohol to take advantage of the girls present.
    In 1982 she was gang raped with Judge and Kavanaugh present, after her drink was laced with Quaaludes [sic: her spelling] or something similar.
    By 1983 she had continued attending a total of ten such house parties with Judge and Kavanaugh and spiked punch and gang raping.
    BelieveHerOrElse.
    TotallyCredibleToWellSomeone

  • CDRSchafer||

    In the early 80s "'punch" was a thing - lotsa time koolaid with pure grain. Never touched that gawdawful crap, would drink the Genessee Cream ale instead.

  • John I||

    "WHO THE FUCK HAS PUNCH AT A DRINKING PARTY!"

    You never had jungle juice? Putting booze in punch is extremely normal. The actual weird thing here is that it's being treated like some kind of rapey behavior rather than a normal thing high school and college kids do when they want to get hammered

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...and had discovered that several of her proposed witnesses were deceased.

    Maybe the Clintons were involved after all.

  • libertynugget||

    haha

  • Rob Misek||

    You routinely go to parties where sexual assaults occur.

    You never mention it until many years later when it becomes a financial or political opportunity.

    Then you make unsubstantiated allegations to either blackmail or further your political agenda disregarding due process and ruining your victims (men's) lives.

    This is the meetoo movement.

    It's no longer a slippery slope. It's is society falling down the stairs.

  • libertynugget||

    I haven't heard a cohesive substantiated case against him yet...
    He did something at sometime at some place, but I know he did it!!!!!!!

    Doesn't take a lot of whip progressives into a frenzy.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Meh. The "gang rapes" will probably turn out to be games of "spin the bottle".

  • CGN||

    This "investigation" (read persecution) of Kavanaugh is both absurd and evil. Parties like the ones Kavanaugh's "accusers" (paid by the DNC most likely) attended are basically hook up parties, and having gone to a couple while I was in college, I can report the "harassment" of women was what most women went to the parties for! No one was molested or raped at these parties, as I am sure was true for the parties Kavanaugh attended. There were, however, VERY lively young men and women doing things (consensually) they were later ashamed to have done. This hardy amounts to abuse or rape, and Kavanaugh's paid accusers know it. "Odd" how the same Democrats who cheered Bill Clinton's candidacy didn't worry much about the CREDITABLE (as opposed to Kavanaugh's accusers) accusations of RAPE by four different women, and the grudging admission he blew a load on an intern. Dems have ZERO credibility on the rape issue.

  • BigT||

    Could the delay actually HELP Heffalumps? Without confirmation the Donkeys don't really have a solid case since Kav could still go down. But three Donkeys in red states may get tossed, giving the Heffs a larger, Flake-proof majority for a January vote.

  • JFA||

    NBC considers this legitimate news? There is no wonder why the public views the media with such disdain.

  • Will Seth||

    But amazingly, MSNBC ran with the story.

  • vek||

    Surprise surprise, the lying skank is a lying skank!

    They obviously released this nonsense, and are now walking it back, simply to delay Kav's confirmation even longer. It's so transparent and ridiculous it is insane. This is why they should have just ignored all this BS, voted him in, and said that if anybody can ever come up with anything credible there is always impeachment.

    When will the Rs learn to not cuck when the left tries to pull bullshit on them?

  • CDRSchafer||

    In their defense there's always a few camera hog "mavericks" the media baits, coddles and encourages. There are no DINOs because what's the reward? The media will destroy them. That's the difference.

  • vek||

    Pretty much. When the game is rigged, you stop playing the game. Politics is beyond being polite at this point, it's to the bloodsport stage... That's how the Dems have been playing it for years, time for others to realize it.

  • RPGuy16||

    ""This morning, Swetnick provided four names of friends she says went to the parties with her," said Snow. "One of them says he does not recall a Julie Swetnick."

    "Sure, Julie and I used to go to gang rape parties back in the day. I remember it like it was yesterday. Good times!"

  • CDRSchafer||

    Being a batshit crazy liar is an issue now? Talk about a war on women.

  • John I||

    Unlike the Ford accusation (which could be true or could be not true and there's no real way to tell) this one was completely obvious bullshit from the start and it's hilarious that anyone thought it was true

  • John I||

    Just your average, everyday college girl who attends ten known gang rape parties with a bunch of high school students. A normal thing that often happens

  • John I||

    I feel like not enough people are debating whether it's reasonable in the first place to disqualify people from public office for things they did as high school students when their behavior as actual adults hasn't included any evidence of wrongdoing

    Let's say Kavanaugh committed the crime against Ford. Should someone in their mid-50s be retroactively punished for something they did when they were 17? That's a much less clear cut question than a lot of people are claiming

  • Claude Hopper||

    "I did see him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls," said Swetnick. "I saw him around the punchbowls. I don't know what he did."

    From Wikipedia: In the 1970s, Hulseman's son, Robert Leo Hulseman, came up with the now-ubiquitous red Solo cup.

  • CDRSchafer||

    She's a miracle worker though, she's produced a lawyer who is a walking, talking piece of shit and science cannot explain it.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The ladies are reacting to Comstock-law bigotry aiming service pistols at individual rights. God's Own Prohibitionists™ want judges who interpret the Fifth Amendment to mean: "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to children before birth." That is in the Fifth Amendment (not torture at Gitmo) section of their platform dedicated to Force Initiators™. Changing the 14th Amendment to begin: "All ova fertilized..." is what Republican judges are expected to accomplish. So NO WONDER women have perceived Republican attacks on rational jurisprudence as "the continuation of Jihad by other means." Kavanaugh's critics have shown themselves a LOT more honest than the drafters of the Republican platform. Even the Prohibition Party has had the sense to drop this 1976 shibboleth. Forty-six years of knee-jerk attacks on the Libertarian Roe v Wade decision has only increased the LP vote total from under 4000 to over 4 million.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online